home

Waas on Novak's Disclosures

By Jeralyn, Section
Posted on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 12:22:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Murray Waas, who has been following Rove and Novak as close as anyone in Plamegate, offers up his reactions to Bob Novak's latest disclosure on his role in leaks investigation, particularly Novak's willingness to out Karl Rove.

Also on Novak's latest: Think Progress which notes he has backtracked on his prior promise to tell all.

My reaction, posted yesterday, is here.

Update: See Swopa here, who asks who the first person was to tell Novak that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and whether he knew this before he talked to his "primary source"? Swopa says it's a subject Novak dances around in his latest column. Also see Christy at Firedoglake who calls Novak's statement a "big yawn."

< Late Night Music for Bob Novak | Proud Democrats >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Waas on Novak's Disclosures | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 06:50:55 AM EST
    My question is, why aren't Joe and Val calling for John Harlow to be frog-marched?
    Because "frog-marching" Harlow does nothing for book sales. If you can be known as the power couple who broke the BushCo wall and had Rove led off in a perp walk, imagine how many books that sales, not to mention how many cocktail parties you can get invited two.

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    Novak is telling half-truths as usual. Harlow might've been a source, but didn't Harlow say HE TRIED TO WARN NOVAK NOT to publish Valerie's covert name? What a sleazebag Novak is if it's really true that Harlow (the CIA source) told Novak not to do the very thing that got this whole controversy underway. Harlow should react to Novak's latest account immediately and blast him loudly (so loud that Drudge can't ignore him). Novak can not get away with this or the "Who's Who in America" thing (that's BS as far as I'm concerned - let's check the date on when "Who's Who" was published and correlate it with dates and times of Novak's sources). Sounds like he's double-talking about how he learned about Valerie PLAME (her covert ID).

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 10:09:03 AM EST
    Wow. Two trolls. PabstBlueRibbonman: Because Harlow did not commit a crime. Rove did, and Fitz has him by the balls. Croc_choda: impugning motive? Striaght for the Ad Hominem? You offer nothing. Big Time is going down. That is how Rove skated. I know you are sucking up to Cheney. Perhaps you could be as proximal as Harry Whittington.

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 12:22:01 PM EST
    jf: I attack the two clowns because this mess has gone on long enough and I'm sick of it. Sick I tell you.

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    Sick I tell you.
    we've known that for awhile.

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 02:22:32 PM EST
    Note that if both Rove and Novak are off the hook as a result of information they finally coughed up to Fitzgerald, they can both pretty much lie with impunity, politically-speaking (for now) because they are assured that any grand jury testimony they gave which contradicts their public spin will remain sealed to the public. A lack of details would tend to help such a course of public lying, because it would be easier to fudge if and when a different narrative finally comes out by way of others down the road a piece... Also, I just wanted to give Jeralyn and others a heads-up about the Libby case: At the end of June, Libby's attorney Cline was granted until July 11 (yesterday) to file another Motion to Compel Discovery in the case [following up on the June 12 status conference discussions]. This motion would have been a continuation of the graymail tactic -- as he was planning to request further details about the PDBs beyond what the CIA has already turned over in summary form. So far today, I have seen no indication on the web that the filing came through on PACER as expected. I have a hard time believing it didn't - but if in fact there is no new filing there, that's good news for those who want to see a Libby trial take place. It did sound as though Fitzgerald was working hard with Cline to resolve the situation without the need for another motion. Was Fitzgerald successful in that effort?

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    Trolls? The first two basically polite comments above justify calling the author's trolls? Might be interesting to see what standard was applied to reach that conclusion. Believing something other than the mainstream here shouldn't be enough. Note that some of us come here because it's a well researched, thoughtful blog that often, appropriately, calls BS on both sides of the political fence, not because we agree with everything said. Please consider that a compliment.

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 04:25:04 PM EST
    those were not troll comments, this site is only used to a few pro-Administration commenters. I'm the only one who can delete comments as being being troll comments and I didn't call those. Civilly expressed disagreement is fine here. Have patience.

    Re: Waas on Novak's Disclosures (none / 0) (#9)
    by Patrick on Thu Jul 13, 2006 at 07:00:21 AM EST
    9 comments? I guess this really is over...

    Waas on Novak's Disclosures | 9 comments (9 topical)